alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.b



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund III L.P. (the "Fund") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc N. Teal, Sr. Vice President of C&M Management Inc. and Director of Accounting of Boston Capital Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and                       
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                 
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Fund.



|                  | Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund III L.P.
|----------------- | ---------------------------------------
|                  |                                        
|                  | By:                                    
|                  |                                        
|                  |                                        
|                  | By:                                    
|                  |                                        
|                  |                                        
|                  | By:                                    
|                  |                                        
|                  |                                        
|Date:             |                                        
|Novmeber 20, 2002 | By:                                    
|                  |                                        
|                  |                                        
|                  |                                        
|                  |                                        
|                  |
#### Poipu Beach Restaurant Partnership v. Flores

16571

9/27/96

Affirmed
December 16, 1997

20678

#### Doe, (S.C. No. 20678) In Interest of; Doe, (S.C. No. 20688) In Interest of

Affirmed
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Indevus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Glenn L. Cooper, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|By: /s/ GLENN L. COOPER
|-----------------------
|Chief Executive Officer
|                       
|December 22, 2003
January 8, 2002

23788

#### Doe, In re

Affirmed
June 27, 2016

Docket Operations

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

West Building Ground Floor 

Room W12-140

Washington, DC 20590

RE: Petition for Exemption (Number: 9918B)

Dear Sir or Madam:

Request:

Pursuant to Sections 11.61 and 11.63 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs), GoJet Airlines, LLC 

respectfully petitions for an extension of Exemption No. 9918B as amended (Conditions and 

Limitations shown below).

GoJet Airlines relies on 1Exemption No. 9918B, from 121.434(c)(1)(ii) of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations, to substitute a qualified and authorized check airmen or aircrew program designee for 

an Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector to observe a qualified pilot in command (PIC) who 

is completing initial or upgrade training specified in 121.424 during at least one flight leg that 

includes a takeoff and a landing.

There have been no changes to the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that 

were the basis for granting the original exemption. Exemption No. 9918B is scheduled to expire on 

August 31, 2016.

Conditions and Limitations:

1. A GoJet check airman or aircrew program designee may conduct a PIC observation in place of an 

FAA inspector when—

a. The Administrator preapproves that substitution for each observation of a qualifying PIC 

candidate, thus reserving first right of refusal to the FAA in each case. GoJet, therefore, must 

contact an appropriate FAA office, in each instance, before substituting that check airman or 

aircrew program designee; 

 

1 Please see attachments for the current Exemption No. 9918B

Captain Randy L. Bratcher

Director of Flight Operations

11495 Navaid Road, Suite 377

Bridgeton, Missouri 63044

314.222.4786 office

314.853.1031 mobile

rbratcher@gojetairlines.com
b. The qualifying PIC candidate has completed no less than 10 hours of supervised operating 

experience (OE) and accomplished no fewer than two takeoffs and landings; and 

c. The qualifying PIC candidate is performing PIC duties during a complete flight leg, including 

flight deck preparation, before starting engines checklist, taxi, takeoff, all other flight 

phases, landing, taxi, and securing checklist. 

2. Each GoJet check airman or aircrew program designee conducting a PIC observation in place of an 

FAA inspector must—

a. Be approved by the Administrator to conduct the observation; 

b. Have served as a check airman or aircrew program designee for GoJet for no less than 6 

months; and 

c. Not supervise the OE or conduct the initial line check for the qualifying PIC candidate being 

observed. 

3. GoJet must maintain student, check airman, and aircrew program designee records that 

demonstrate compliance with the conditions and limitations of this exemption. 

Please contact me if you require additional information. Thank you very much for your time.

Sincerely,

Randy Bratcher
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 455 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 455

  Expressing support for designation of the inaugural ``Cruise Travel 
                    Professional Month'' in October.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 1, 2015

 Mr. Curbelo of Florida (for himself, Ms. Brown of Florida, Ms. Wilson 
    of Florida, and Ms. Frankel of Florida) submitted the following 
 resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing support for designation of the inaugural ``Cruise Travel 
                    Professional Month'' in October.

Whereas more than 10,000 travel agencies and 19,000 individual cruise travel 
        professionals throughout the United States support a safe, secure, 
        healthy, and sustainable cruise ship environment, and are dedicated to 
        promoting an enriching cruise travel experience for all consumers;
Whereas these agencies and professionals participate in ongoing professional 
        development and training programs to build cruise industry knowledge;
Whereas cruise travel professionals deliver value to consumers by providing 
        advice on choosing the best cruise based on customers' budget and 
        interests, and taking the worry out of vacation planning by arranging 
        all the details;
Whereas 70 percent of United States cruisers use a cruise travel professional to 
        plan and book cruise vacations;
Whereas the United States is the number one source of cruise passengers, with 
        11,350,000 cruise passengers in 2014;
Whereas the cruise industry in the United States generated 375,000 jobs across 
        all 50 States in 2014;
Whereas the cruise industry spent $21,000,000,000 directly with United States 
        businesses and generated $46,000,000,000 in gross outputs due to 
        spending of cruise lines and their crew and passengers, including 
        indirect economic impacts in 2014; and
Whereas October would be an appropriate month to designate as ``Cruise Travel 
        Professional Month'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the designation of the inaugural ``Cruise 
        Travel Professional Month'';
            (2) acknowledges the creativity and professionalism of the 
        men and women of the Cruise Travel Professional community; and
            (3) encourages the people of the United States to observe 
        this month with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
                                 <all>
```
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Export Aquatic Animals: APHISRegistered Aquaculture Export

Facility Inspection Program

Last Modified: 

Print

This inspection program was updated and went into effect on September 18, 2023.

Some countries require exporting aquatic animal facilities to be under APHIS

(official) oversight to be eligible to export. If so, your facility must be inspected and

approved under the APHIS Registered Aquaculture Export Facility (RAEF) inspection

program prior to shipping animals internationally. 

As a reminder, RAEF is only required if the facility is exporting to a country that

either 1) requires APHIS oversight (regardless of whether export testing is required

or not), and/or 2) when premises freedom level testing is required to export to a

country.

Select your facility type, and follow the steps to determine if facility approval is

required and if so, the type of approval(s) needed. Please note that depending on

the facility’s business model, approval under both facility types listed below may be

needed.

RAEF Production Facility Approval 
Facilities that breed, produce, grow, and/or package live aquatic animals on their

premises prior to international export must follow the RAEF Production Facility

Approval steps.

RAEF Reboxing/Relabeling Facility Approval 

Facilities that receive live aquatic animals from suppliers for the purposes of

reboxing (i.e., changing the outer packaging materials) and/or relabeling the

shipment prior to international export must follow the RAEF Reboxing/Relabeling

Facility Approval steps.
April 29, 2004

25282

#### State v. Baker

Affirmed
902 P.2d 976

SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I

#### State v. Partington

17962

9/05/95

Affirmed
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

TRAVEL GROUP, INC., D/B/A REPUBLIC AIR TRAVEL 

AND SCOT SPENCER 

AIRLIFT GROUP, INC. 

AND RICHARD BERNARD 

Unauthorized Air Transportation, 

Unfair and Deceptive Practices and Unfair Methods of 

Competition, and Violations of Public Charter Rules 

EXPRESS ONE INTERNATIONAL, INC. 

Unfair and Deceptive Practices and Unfair Methods of 

Competition, and Violations of Public Charter Rules 

Enforcement Proceeding 

STATUS REPORT 

DOT -OST -1995-272 

formerly Docket 49233 

The Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and 

Proceedings ("Enforcement Office"), pursuant to Your Honor's March 22, 2006, Order 

staying this proceeding, files this report detailing t~e current status of this proceeding and 

settlement negotiations. 

The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents 

and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004-

17486. 
2 

There have been no further settlement discussions. 

Date: January 30, 2015 

Respectfully submitted, 

~/IV~ Blane Workie 

Assistant General Counsel for 

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

Vinh Q. Nguyen 

Senior Trial Attorney 

United States Department of Transportation 

Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Room 96-429 · 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

TEL: 202-366-9342 

FAX: 202-366-7152 
3 

Docket No. DOT-OST-1995-272 

I hereby certify that on this 30th day of January, 2015, a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing Status Report was served in the following manner to the following: 

Original 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations, M-30 

West Building Ground Floor 

Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

By First Class Mail 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

TEL: (202) 366-2142 

FAX: (202) 366-7536 

By First Class Mail 

Scot Spencer 

SBD Aircraft Services 

255 S Leland Norton Way 

Sam Bernardino, CA 92408 

Scot Spencer 

22604 Esplanada Circle 

Boca Raton, Florida 33433
### Adams, Kevin (CST)
From: Sent: To: Subject:

Mr. Adams, Matthew Mitchell [mmitchell@agh.org] Thursday, November 03, 2011 2:07 PM Adams, Kevin (OST) Essential Air Service Bid in Alpena 

### ,-,**~ ;,'-;HT;~~;(:t>.:·** 

- "'-·-**~~'-** ' i _,, :- ·- I I ,_'

I am writing in regards to the Essential Air Service bids forthe Alpena County Airport. Ithink thatthe flying publicthose paying for the $3 Million dollar subsidy- deserve betterthan the Gulfstream International bid. This is a huge step down in service forthe residents ofall of Northeast Michigan. It would require multiple layovers in orderto getto many majorflying destinations. In orderto visit myfamily in New Orleans itwould take a minimum of 13 hours (on the best itinerary available) and cost over $700. Itwould require senior citizens to be on a plane for over an hourwithout a restroom. It would require many more cancellations due to the smaller plane. It would strand people out ofstate when flights get cancelled.

The citizens of Northeast Michigan do not wantthe service being proposed by Gulfstream International. We would like to see ourairport get to the point where we don't need the Essential Air Service. Our numbers have been climbing steadily. Delta, in its decision to retire its turbo-prop fleet, has done little or nothing to make their regional jet successful in Alpena. The people of Northeast Michigan were not even made aware ofthejet service when itwas here for ashort while in the spring and Ithink that Delta would continue to be successful in Alpena iftheyworked with the Alpena County Airport to markettheir service. Enplanements have been up without thejet. The regional jetwould be a great benefit to our communities and would make the numbers rise even more.
Please do not accept the inadequate bid from Gulfstream lnternation. It is awaste of public money. The public should get something for whatthey are subsidizing. Gulfstream is notthe answer and the people of Northeast Michigan will not use its service. Sincerely,

MattMitchell NetworkAnalyst MIS Department Alpena Regional Medical Center 

### P989.356.8064, F989.356.7775 mjmitchell@agh.org www.AipenaRegionaiMedicaiCenter.org
This internet message may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure. It is intended for use only by the person to whom it is addressed. Ifyou have received this in error, please (1) do notforward or use this information in any way; and (2) notify us immediately by responding to this email and then delete this email and any attachments from your computer. Thank you, Alpena Regional Medical Center

1
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Commercial Vessel Fee

Last Modified: 

Print

The AQI program inspects commercial vessels of 100 net tons or more and

associated cargo arriving at ports of entry in the customs territory of the United

States.

User fee regulations (7 CFR 354.3(a)) define a commercial vessel as: “Any watercraft

or other contrivance used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on

water to transport property for compensation or hire with the exception of any

aircraft or ferry.” Commercial vessel fee regulations are listed in 7 CFR 354.3(b).

The Cost and What It Covers

The current commercial vessel fee is $825.00 (see 7 CFR 354.3(b)). This fee covers

the direct and indirect costs of clearing a vessel, including:

Reviewing manifests and documents with incoming cargo

Targeted, risk-based cargo inspection or clearance.

Inspecting agricultural and agricultural-related commodities, containers,

compliant wood packaging material, and packing materials to screen for plant

pests and contaminants, ensure compliance with regulations, and determine

entry status
Inspecting the vessel for contaminants, pests, or invasive pests

Inspecting the ship’s stores to ensure they are free of prohibited items

Monitoring storage and removal of regulated international garbage from the

vessel to ensure consistency with all regulatory requirements

Identifying pests found during inspection

Safeguarding shipments pending APHIS’ decision on treatment or final

disposition

Issuing phytosanitary permits for commodities moved by vessel

Exemptions

Some categories of commercial vessels are exempt from paying an AQI user fee (see

7 CFR 354.3(b)(2)). Cruise lines do not pay the commercial vessel fee because the

cost of inspecting the entirety of the vessel is included in the international cruise

(sea) passenger fee, and cruise vessels do not generally carry commercial cargo.

Paying the Fee

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) collects the commercial vessel user fee

upon each arrival at a port of entry as described in 7 CFR 354.3(b)(1). CBP remits

commercial vessel fee collections to APHIS monthly.

Reimbursable Overtime Services

Customers may request and receive AQI services associated with activities typically

covered by an AQI user fee outside the normal tour of duty of the employee(s)

providing the requested service. In such cases, overtime charges may be assessed

as outlined in 7 CFR 354.1.

APHIS Reimbursable Overtime Services

Refer to the APHIS Reimbursable Overtime Services web page for additional

information including how to pay the reimbursable overtime fee.

CBP Reimbursable Overtime Services
Any requests for agriculture reimbursable overtime will be made in accordance with

CBP port policy. Please contact your local CBP Port of Entry.
#### State v. Castorino

18367

2/13/95

Affirmed
#### SALT LAKE CITY, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Golden W. ROBBINS, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 14179.

Supreme Court of Utah.

June 3, 1976.

*731David R. Bowen, Salt Lake City, for defendant and appellant.

Roger F. Cutler, Salt Lake City Atty., Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.

ELLETT, Justice:

Salt Lake City, in order to raise revenue, passed an ordinance making it unlawful to engage in or carry on any business within Salt Lake City for which a license is required without first procuring the license.1

Another ordinance2 defined “Engaging business,” inter alia, as rendering personal services for others for a consideration by persons engaged in any profession.

The ordinance 3 then levied an annual license fee upon each place of business in the amount of $30 plus $3 for each and every employee, exceeding one, engaged in the operation of the business.

Mr. Robbins is an attorney engaged in the practice of law within the limits of Salt Lake City and has several stenographers in his employment, but has no partner. He refused to take out a license claiming that the city had no authority to license professions where personal services are rendered to the public. This claim was answered contrary to his contention in the case of *Davis v. Ogden City*4 wherein this court held that a city could, as a revenue producing measure, license those engaged in the practice of law.

Mr. Robbins further claims that the ordinance is void in that it does not apply uniformly to lawyers who practice alone and to those who have a partnership arrangement.

The answer to that argument is that the ordinance does not purport to tax attorneys, it licenses businesses and each business is taxed uniformly.

The ordinance provides that the license fee for businesses with gross earnings of $10,000 or less per year will be only $7.50. This type of ordinance was held to be constitutional in the recent case of *State v. T*aylor,5

Mr. Robbins makes a claim that the ordinance has been discriminately administered. There is no merit to that claim. Those lawyers, like Mr. Robbins, who refuse to pay their license fee are sued for the amount, and until the city finds out that a lawyer is not paying the tax it cannot be held to discriminate in favor of a nonpaying lawyer merely because it did not sue or prosecute before it discovered the situation.

This appeal is from a summary judgment whereby the trial court held Mr. Robbins liable, as a matter of law, for the unpaid license fees. The ruling of the trial court was correct and the judgment is therefore affirmed. No costs are awarded.

CROCKETT and MAUGHAN, JJ., concur.

HENRIOD, C. J., concurs in the result.

TUCKETT, J., dissents.

1

. Sec. 20-1-1, Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City.

2

. Sec. 20-3-1(2), Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City.

3

. Sec. 20-3-2.

4

. 117 Utah 315, 215 P.2d 616 (1950).

5

. 541 P.2d 1124 (Utah 1975).